Sceptre calls for ban of Kurt Weber, cites "Off-wiki harassment, and continuation of disruption to mak Options

[Apathetic]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Adm...ts#Ban_proposal

[CrazyGameOfPoker]

Apparently Sceptre doesn't believe Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist.

I believe he will next claim the sky isn't blue, and join the Flat Earth Society.

[Sceptre]

Apparently Sceptre doesn't believe Osama Bin Laden is a terrorist.

I believe he will next claim the sky isn't blue, and join the Flat Earth Society.

I'm not saying he isn't a terrorist, I'm saying it's highly inappropriate to call him one in the manner Wikipedia currently does. Being Bin Laden doesn't mean we suspend guidelines and policies. NPOV is quite clear that we don't say he's a terrorist (because he's one man's freedom fighter). WEASEL also says that we should avoid "Some say" in favour of "Interpol, the UK government, the US goverment, et al".

[Ottava]

I'm not saying he isn't a terrorist, I'm saying it's highly inappropriate to call him one in the manner Wikipedia currently does. Being Bin Laden doesn't mean we suspend guidelines and policies. NPOV is quite clear that we don't say he's a terrorist (because he's one man's freedom fighter). WEASEL also says that we should avoid "Some say" in favour of "Interpol, the UK government, the US goverment, et al".

NPOV is an honorable concept to try to enforce in the place you would most likely get burned. You had to know someone would have gone after you for it when you didn't actually put the "Interpol, the UK government, the US government, et al" in there yourself, right? Perhaps there is too much AGF on your part thinking that the you wouldn't find someone with nothing better to do than to try and start up an edit war with you.

I would just ignore the angry masses.

By the way, did you notice that it is part of "WikiProject Terrorism"? Could be a mass problem of weaseling about.

Kurt has an account here, but I don't think he has posted since there was a debate over the infallibility of Ayn Rand, in which he was the sole pro-infallibility voice.

Oh, the irony of worshiping Ayn Rand made me laugh.

[Sceptre]

I'm not saying he isn't a terrorist, I'm saying it's highly inappropriate to call him one in the manner Wikipedia currently does. Being Bin Laden doesn't mean we suspend guidelines and policies. NPOV is quite clear that we don't say he's a terrorist (because he's one man's freedom fighter). WEASEL also says that we should avoid "Some say" in favour of "Interpol, the UK government, the US goverment, et al".

NPOV is an honorable concept to try to enforce in the place you would most likely get burned. You had to know someone would have gone after you for it when you didn't actually put the "Interpol, the UK government, the US government, et al" in there yourself, right? Perhaps there is too much AGF on your part thinking that the you wouldn't find someone with nothing better to do than to try and start up an edit war with you.

I would just ignore the angry masses.

By the way, did you notice that it is part of "WikiProject Terrorism"? Could be a mass problem of weaseling about.

Kurt has an account here, but I don't think he has posted since there was a debate over the infallibility of Ayn Rand, in which he was the sole pro-infallibility voice.

Oh, the irony of worshiping Ayn Rand made me laugh.

It's not really up to the critic to fix things. However, instead of tag-warring, I made a change to the article so it didn't include that horrible "numerous" phrase, but instead listed his indictments. Guess what? It got reverted because there was no consensus to remove weasel words

[Ottava]

It's not really up to the critic to fix things. However, instead of tag-warring, I made a change to the article so it didn't include that horrible "numerous" phrase, but instead listed his indictments. Guess what? It got reverted because there was no consensus to remove weasel words

Yeah, but the thing that they forget is consensus can't go against the policy, and even consensus can't change some policies, which NPOV happens to have a large amount of points that fall under that little number.

You could always take it up with OTRS, although I doubt someone would sue on the behalf of Bin Laden (although there might be one or two Muslim groups that are willing to say that it damages all Muslims).

If I was there, I would have jumped in and added the specific groups with refs behind each one, but........... I'm not and you'll have to wait a few days.

Are you trolling, or are you actually serious?

Random, if he isn't serious, I will be -

Wikipedia is supposed to be seeing as objective. This means that you cannot use any label that attributes a "value" to an individual without first attributing it to a source. We cannot say this person is "smart", this person is "great", etc, unless we first say "according to ___ this person is ____". Now, people try to get around it by saying "some say" or other vague expressions. This is unencyclopedic, because it is unspecific.

Regardless, it is a best practice to be as specific and as informative as possible, which requires sources for information.

Does that make sense? If not, you can make fun of me for the rest of your time here. I don't mind.

[Sceptre]

You could always take it up with OTRS, although I doubt someone would sue on the behalf of Bin Laden (although there might be one or two Muslim groups that are willing to say that it damages all Muslims).

BLP is a legal and ethical requirement. Even if Osama can't sue, namecalling just lowers us to their level